Today’s Legal Updates

Wednesday, 20th June 2022



CHAPTER- I THE EXECUTIVE (The President and Vice-President)

Article – 67 Term of office of Vice-President.

The Vice-President shall hold office for a term of five years from the date on which he enters upon his office:
Provided that—

(a) a Vice-President may, by writing under his hand addressed to the President, resign his office;
(b) a Vice-President may be removed from his office by a resolution of the Council of States passed by a majority of all the then members of the Council and agreed to by the House of the People; but no resolution for the purpose of this clause shall be moved unless at least fourteen days’ notice has been given of the intention to move the resolution;
(c) a Vice-President shall, notwithstanding the expiration of his term, continue to hold office until his successor enters upon his office.

Today’s Legal Updates :-

  1. On Wednesday the Madras High Court has held that it is a settled position of law that the date of dispatch of a notice alone should be taken into account for deciding limitation in a dispute under the Customs Act and not date of delivery of such notice. (M/s Lalchand Bhimraj v The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal)
    • the division bench held, This court is of the view that if the date of despatch of notices is taken into consideration, the notices served on the petitioner are within the period of limitation.
    • the Supreme court’s judgment had said, In cases where substantial compliance has been found, there has been actual compliance with the statute, albeit procedurally faulty.
  2. On Wednesday the Madras High Court ordered the State government to immediately stop back door appointments in public services in order to ensure that equal opportunity is provided to all eligible candidates through an open, competitive process.  (C Wilbert vs The Management of Indian Institute of Technology)
    • the judge said, Lakhs and lakhs youth of our great nation are longing to secure public employment through open competitive process and they are working hard for the purpose of succeeding in the competitive process. While so, back door appointments or illegal or irregular appointments, if regularised, undoubtedly, the fundamental rights of those candidates, who all are aspiring to secure public employment through open competitive process are infringed.
    • the judge added, Thus, the back door appointments are to be stopped forthwith in order to ensure that equal opportunity in public employment is provided to all the eligible candidates through open competitive process by implementing the rule of reservation.
    • the order, Therefore, the leniency may be permissible only in certain exceptional cases, in the event of no unconstitutionality or non violation of any Statutes and Rules. Thus, there cannot be any misplaced sympathy in the matter of upholding the Constitutional Philosophy and Ethos.
    • it held, If at all, the benefit of regularisation and permanent absorption are granted to irregular and illegal appointments in a routine manner, no doubt, the fundamental rights of all the eligible persons, who all are waiting for securing public employment are violated. Courts are bound to consider the plea of those poor people from rural and semi-urban areas of our great nation, who all are preparing meritoriously to face the competitive process with a fond of hope that their merits will be recognised by the State in one way or other for the purpose of securing public employment.
    • Once the Constitution Bench has settled the principles regarding the regularization and permanent absorption, any Government Order running counter to the principles, cannot be implemented and based on such Government Orders, benefits cannot be conferred by the Courts. Thus, any judgment running counter to the principles settled by the Constitution Bench of the top court, cannot be followed as a precedent for the purpose of considering the relief.
    • he judge held, Such relaxation of Rules cannot be now granted in a routine manner, even by the Government. The appointments made in an irregular or illegal manner cannot be regularised by granting regularisation or otherwise.
  3. On Wednesday the Karnataka High Court has called for an expression of interest (EOI) inviting vendors/ original equipment manufacturers (OEMs)/ system integrators (SIs) to suggest and demonstrate technical solutions for hardware to run video conference platform for court hearings and live streaming of court proceedings in High Court and District Courts.
    • the notice said, The High Court of Karnataka intends to call for Expression of Interest (EOI), from interested OEM / Vendor / SI to conduct Proof of Concept (POC) in one of its Court Halls to be allocated at High Court of Karnataka Principal Bench Bangalore, Benches at Dharwad & Kalaburagi and District Judiciary, by way of demo as to complete interface of Hardware to run, VC platform in Hybrid mode and for live streaming of Court Proceedings as well, for implementation of paperless work flow in Court Hall and to share technical requirements, data sheets, documents, design, estimates and other requirements including applications if any to run the above platform/interface in Court Hall to enable this office to prepare Detailed Project Report (DPR).
  4. On Tuesday the Delhi High Court dismissed a plea filed by a Chinese firm against Reliance Infrastructure Limited (RIL) seeking interim relief for recovery of a disputed amount arising of a contract between the parties and alleging “dissipation of assets” on Reliance’s part. (Shanghai Electric Group Co Ltd v. Reliance Infrastructure Limited)
    • Justice Sanjeev Narula held no prima facie case was made out in favour of the petitioner firm SEGCL Electric Group Co. Ltd (SEGCL) and said, “No prima facie case, balance of convenience and irretrievable harm or injury has been demonstrated in favour of SEGCL. The Court is thus, not inclined to grant the reliefs prayed for.”
    • the Court said, Neither has any arbitral award been passed, nor has the question of enforcement arisen. However, this does not mean that a party cannot invoke jurisdiction under Section 9 on the basis of the location of assets.
    • the High Court noted, Given that the liability of Reliance UK and Reliance under the Guarantee Letter is highly disputed and contested, and further, since Reliance has raised counter-claims, the Court cannot consider the claim of SEGCL to be ‘admitted’ or only ‘superficially denied.
    •  it held, Thus, in view of contentious issues raised by Reliance, at this stage, no prima facie case is made out for proceeding against the assets of Reliance or grant such other interim injunctive relief to secure SEGCL’s claim, pending the decision of the Arbitral Tribunal.
  5. On Wednesday the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai Bench ordered for the initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against Future Retail, and appointed an Insolvency Resolution Professional (IRP). (Bank of India v. Future Retail Limited)
    • the Bench of Justice PN Deshmukh and Shyam Babu Gautam (Technical Member) rejected an intervention application filed by Amazon challenging the insolvency proceedings.
    • Future Retail Limited (FRL) entered into a framework agreement with Bank of India for availing credit facility from a consortium of lenders including Axis Bank and Andhra Bank.
    • FRL failed to honour the agreement, resulting in Bank of India filing a CIRP application under Section 7 of the Insolvency Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC).
    • Amazon filed an intervention application (IA) under Section 65 of the IBC (fraudulent or malicious intent of proceedings) challenging the insolvency proceedings on the ground that FRL was barred from disposing of or creating encumbrance on its assets or issuing any securities to secure any funding from a restricted party, as per the terms of Singapore Emergency Arbitrator’s award passed in 2020.
    • The interest of Amazon in FRL arises from the e-commerce giant’s investment of ₹1,500 crore in Future Coupons, thereby acquiring 49% stake. Future Coupons is promoter of Future Group and holds 9.82% stake in its retail segment. The deal resulted in Amazon holding 4.81% stake in FRL.
    • The insolvency proceedings against FRL are in the backdrop of the failed deal between Reliance and FRL worth ₹24,713, crore which was opposed by secured creditors including Amazon.
  6. On Wednesday the Supreme Court Collegium has recommended the elevation of five judicial officers as judges of the Karnataka High Court.
    1. Anil Bheemsen Katti;
    2. Gurusiddaiah Basavaraja;
    3. Chandrashekhar Mrutyunjaya Joshi;
    4. Umesh Manjunathbhat Adiga;
    5. Talkad Girigowda Shivashankare Gowda.
  7. On Wednesday the Supreme Court Collegium has recommended the elevation of seven judicial officers as judges of the Andhra Pradesh High Court.
    1. Adusumalli Venkata Ravindra Babu;
    2. Vakkalagadda Radha Krishna Krupa Sagar;
    3. Syamsunder Bandaru;
    4. Srinivas Vutukuru;
    5. Bopanna Varaha Lakshmi Narasimha Chakravarthi;
    6. Tallapragada Mallikarjuna Rao;
    7. Duppala Venkata Ramana
  8. On Wednesday the Supreme Court Collegium has recommended the elevation of nine judicial officers as judges of the Allahabad High Court.
    1. Renu Agarwal;
    2. Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi;
    3. Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra;
    4. Jyotsna Sharma;
    5. Mayank Kumar Jain;
    6. Shiv Shanker Prasad;
    7. Gajendra Kumar;
    8. Surendra Singh-I;
    9. Nalin Kumar Srivastava.
  9. On Tuesday the Supreme Court asked the Central government to consider the request for pensionary benefits raised by a former post office employee who was sent to Pakistan for covert operations but was captured and incarcerated there for many years.  (Mahmood Ansari vs Union of India)
  10. On Wednesday the Bombay High Court told the Maharashtra prison authority undertrials or convicts who are in prison for offences like sedition, terrorism under Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) or for heinous crimes cannot avail telephonic facilities in the jail.
  11. On Wednesday the Supreme Court issued notice to the Central government and the Election Commission of India (ECI) on a plea seeking to limit the number of seats from which a candidate can contest in elections.  (Koshy Jacob v Union of India & Anr.)
  12. On Wednesday the Calcutta High Court held that a police officer cannot disqualify the driving license of a person under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.  (Priyasha Bhattacharyya vs State of West Bengal)
  13. On Wednesday the Supreme Court granted bail to AltNews co-founder Mohammed Zubair in the six first information reports (FIRs) registered against him by the Uttar Pradesh Police (UP Police).
  14. On Wednesday the Supreme Court issued notice in all petitions related to the political crisis in Maharashtra and gave parties time to file replies in the matter.
  15. On Wednesday Veteran lawyers at Vaish Associates Satwinder Singh and NPS Chawla, along with Principal Associates Sujoy Datta, Kalpit Khandelwal and Lokesh Dhyani, have moved out of the firm with their teams to launch Aekom Legal.
  16. On Wednesday Formerly Associate Partner at Desai & Diwanji Saurabh Bindal has joined Fox Mandal & Associates as Partner in the Dispute Resolution practice and will be working out of the Firm’s offices in New Delhi.
  17. On Wednesday Saraf and Partners held an Annual Day program to celebrate its one-year anniversary on this day Saraf and Partners appoints and promotes 16 lawyers.
  18. On Wednesday the Delhi High Court said that it will hear the batch of matters challenging the Central government’s Agnipath scheme on August 25.
  19. On Wednesday the Delhi High Court stayed the guidelines issued by the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) on July 4 stipulating that hotels or restaurant should not add service charge automatically or by default to food bills.  (NRAI & Ors. vs. UOI & Ors.)
  20. On Wednesday the Kerala High Court ordered the detention of a Russian cargo ship at the Cochin Port Trust for non-payment of dues to Estonian firm, Bunker Partner OU.  (Bunker Partner OU v MV MAIA-1)
  21. On Tuesday the Supreme Court stayed a March 23 judgment of the Karnataka High Court which had declined to quash the charge of rape framed under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against a man accused of raping and keeping his wife as a sex slave.  (Hrishikesh Sahoo v. State of Karnataka)
  22. On Tuesday the Supreme Court stayed proceedings against 30 army personnel booked by the State police in connection with the killing of 14 civilians in Nagaland’s Mon district in December 2021.

Legal Prudent Fraternity